#1 2009-07-13 23:22:23
Bobo outted Hooray for audits as Tim Weisberg and we all know Bobo wouldn't lie. So shouldn't Bobo just well post as Tim? Or under his own name, I don't care.
Anyway, this is entirely my nickle and if that means my holy underwear sees another year's service, so be it.
Bill Whitehouse
edit: Also, I quit smoking recently so my patent bullshit endurance is limited. Forewarned.
Last edited by billw (2009-07-13 23:24:45)
Offline
#2 2009-07-14 00:09:17
Bobo wrote:
It’s become so ugly now they aren’t even attempting any pretense of truth anymore. When Observer sports correspondent Tim Weisberg recently left the paper to spend more time working on his radio show, the hate-mongers said he left because the Observer stopped paying him.
That’s another outright lie. Weisberg himself tried to set the record straight on a local hate site, but his post was disallowed. These people know they are lying but they just don’t care anymore
Someone's lying, huh?
Offline
#3 2009-07-14 00:29:44
A message from Robert...
"Bill, I like you about as much as you like me, but that has nothing to do with this email. HorrayforAudits is not Tim Weisberg. I know who Horray is. He emailed me the other day. I had never heard his name before. That's the God's honest truth. I swear it isn't Tim. Tim is a great guy who has done nothing to you or anyone who posts on your website. He is completely apolitical. He has a charming wife and a sweet little boy and works his ass off at three different jobs to support them. This is cruel, even for you. You know damn well you will bring harassment against him and his family. He had no say whatsoever in the editorial position of the Observer. His family doesn't deserve this. I am appealing to whatever humanity you have left that you will not drag this guy and his family through the mud. I know kicking cigarettes is tough, but please think about what you're doing. You can hate me all you want but Tim has nothing to do with any of this. He is about the most universally liked and respected person I have met in Wareham. He is not HoorayforAudits. Please don't do this to him. You are not that evil."
A message from Ms Lilly...
Please remember you're not supposed to kill the messenger...
Offline
#4 2009-07-14 06:40:32
BILLW DIDNT OUT HOORAY SLAGER DID. HAVE SLAGER COME OUT AND SAY HE LIED. UNTIL THEN ITS TIM
Offline
#5 2009-07-14 06:53:56
Bill,
Hopefully, this reaches you. I am also going to attempt to post it on WarehamObserver.com as well.
First, I am not HoorayforAudits. I have only attempted to post on your site once, and it was under the name SpookyTim. As site admin, I'm sure you have access to the emails that are registered to your site. You will see that SpookyTim is registered to my email account. That's a screen name I often use in relation to my radio show enterprise, "Spooky Southcoast."
The entry I attempted to post was in relation to the "Where's Weisberg?" thread in which I explained that I left the Observer to dedicate that time to working on my show and a subsequent enterprise I have started as well, a PR company called ParaRelations. Although the Observer only took a few hours of my time each week, I'm already so busy that I couldn't clear any hours elsewhere to work on these projects, so I had to make a sacrifice. I left the company paid completely up-to-date and appreciative of the opportunity Rob gave me starting back at the Wareham Bulletin.
I tried to post this last week, but it never made it to the site. I wasn't sure if entries are automatically posted or if they need admin approval first. I entered the text and clicked "submit." I never saw the post on the site after that.
As you can see by my own board at SpookySouthcoast.com, I'm not much of a message board poster. It's possible I screwed something up, but I thought I did it right.
Anyway, as I said, I am not HoorayforAudits. Please remove my name from any posts written by that author, and I also ask that you please author a post retracting where you "outed" me. As a writer, I always stand by what I write, but I'm sure you can understand i don't want my name attached to someone else's work.
Thanks,
Tim Weisberg
Offline
#6 2009-07-14 07:02:30
HOORAY FOR ADUTIS IS SLAGER, LIEING THAT IT WAS TIM WISEBURG .
Offline
#7 2009-07-14 07:28:54
Bill:
I certainly appreciate your position, but if Mr. Weisberg is asking to have his name removed from posts that he states he did not author does it matter whether the poster appears as "HoorayforAudits" or "Tim Weisberg"? I think most of the people who have frequented this site for a long time know that whoever is behind the screen name is not someone who is like minded to them.
I would feel more comfortable if you granted Mr. Weisberg's request, I believe that posting under ones own name is something many in the community are not yet comfortable with, but I have noticed a few are now doing so. In order to encourage more people to do so, to my way of thinking, the request should be honored. Please.
Offline
#8 2009-07-14 07:44:31
BILL I BELEAVE SOMEONE IS LIEING , ITS SLAGER SAYING HOORAY WAS TIM WISEBURG , AND THROWING ONE OF HIS EX EMPLOYEES UNDER THE BUS , SLAGER LIES FOR THE FUN OF IT AND IS A PROVEN LIAR , AND I HEAR THRU THE GRAPE VINE THAT TIM TOOK SLAGERS MONEY BECAUSE HE NEEDED THE MONEY BUT COULD NOT STAND SLAGER. SLAGER IS SUCH A PIECE OF WOULD SCUM, AND AS FOR MS LILY SAYING THERE SHOULD BE DEBATES , GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE WHO WOULD WANT TO DEBATE THAT SHITHEAD
Offline
#9 2009-07-14 08:39:48
I'm not sure who Hooray is, but they really need to brush up on their detective work!
Offline
#10 2009-07-14 10:34:40
Bill,
Are you sure you quit smoking? Because it looks like you smoked out a Ragman.
"Horray e-mailed me the other day." Oh Ragman, that's so adorable. Even in your pathetic groveling, you still can't spell.
Tim W is a good guy and he is not Hooray.
No, Hooray's hatefulness, paranoia, and all around smarmyness are qualities only found among bagel biters and August leather jacket wearers.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-14 10:38:21)
Offline
#11 2009-07-14 10:39:43
Hamatron5000 wrote:
"Horray e-mailed me the other day." Oh Ragman, that's so adorable. Even in your pathetic groveling, you still can't spell
Ham, that was my misspelling...
Offline
#12 2009-07-14 10:54:43
Hamatron5000 wrote:
"Horray e-mailed me the other day." Oh Ragman, that's so adorable. Even in your pathetic groveling, you still can't spell.
Tim W is a good guy and he is not Hooray.
No, Hooray's hatefulness, paranoia, and all around smarmyness are qualities only found among bagel biters and August leather jacket wearers.
Grab a seat, Ham, and prepare to piss yourself laughing.
Bobo Skidmark wrote:
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: RSlager366@aol.com
Subject: Criminal harassment
X-Originating-IP: [74.208.4.195]
To: billw@warehamobserver.com
Mr. Whitehouse, you have five minutes to take down the fraudulent posts
being attributed to my name or I will file criminal harassment charges
against you and file a defamation lawsuit. I have never posted anything on your web site. I can prove that. You finally stepped over the line. You are truly a sick man.
Robert Slager
**************Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Last edited by billw (2009-07-14 10:55:53)
Offline
#13 2009-07-14 10:59:49
This confirms that not only does he read this site, he must keep refreshing it ever minute.
Offline
#14 2009-07-14 11:25:22
I don't think posters should be allowed to spoof this message board. Use your real name or a made up one but not the name of another person. Assuming this email is from the real Robert Slager, I very much doubt there is a case for a criminal harassment charge. That would be up to the district attorney's office.
Of course he or anyone can file a civil defamation lawsuit. Pay for a lawyer, take it to court and prove that defamation occurred and ask for damages.
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
The defendant is charged with criminal harassment. Section 43A of chapter 265 of our General Laws provides as follows:
“Whoever, willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a
period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress shall be punished...”
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct or speech, or a series of acts, on at least three separate occasions, directed at [the alleged victim] ;
Second: That those actions were of a kind that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress;
Third: That those actions did cause [the alleged victim] to become seriously alarmed; and
Fourth: That the defendant engaged in those actions willfully and maliciously.
To satisfy the first element of the offense, the Commonwealth must prove a pattern of conduct which includes a minimum of three incidents of harassment. The Commonwealth must further prove that each incident was directed at [the alleged victim] , and that the defendant intended that
[the alleged victim] know that each of these incidents was directed at (him)
(her).
To satisfy the second element, the Commonwealth must prove that a reasonable person would suffer substantial emotional distress if confronted with those acts, conduct or speech. By substantial emotional distress, I mean distress that is considerable, of importance, solid and real. The offending conduct must be such as would produce a considerable or
significant amount of emotional distress in a reasonable person; something markedly greater than the level of uneasiness, nervousness, unhappiness or the like which is commonly experienced in day to dayliving.
To satisfy the third element, the Commonwealth must prove that
[the alleged victim] was seriously alarmed by this conduct.
To satisfy the fourth element, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant acted willfully and maliciously. An act is “willful” if it is done intentionally and by design, and not out of mistake or accident. The defendant acted willfully if the defendant intended the conduct. An act is done with “malice” if the defendant’s conduct was intentional and without justification or mitigation, and any reasonably prudent person would have foreseen the actual harm that resulted to
[the alleged victim] .
If you find that the Commonwealth has proved each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should return a verdict of guilty on this charge. If you find that the Commonwealth has not proved one or more of these four elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty of this charge.
Offline
#15 2009-07-14 12:43:18
urneighbor is a very wise and well educated man. I assume you are a lawyer or associated with the law in some way.
It should also be noted that a civil suit against anyone posting anything on a web site would be fruitless.
It would be impossible to prove damages, and the Courts have already ruled that the web is protected under the First Amendment. I don't know of any cases that have been successful anywhere for civil damages in a civil defamation suit resulting from posts on a web site.
I just read on the Observer web site that Robert Slager did indeed file a criminal complaint.
I predict it will go absolutely no where. Not even the Feds would fool with something like this.
I would be concerned that Mr. Slager may be accused of filing a frivilous criminal complaint, and place himself in the position of being charged by the D.A.
I don't think anyone wins in this case.
Offline
#16 2009-07-14 12:55:54
Slagers world and the real world never match up. I bet it goes the way of the guy that wrote the Icarus poem that bobo called a threat... Nowhere!
Offline
#17 2009-07-14 13:31:02
Wow....all this hooplah for what?
Offline
#18 2009-07-14 14:02:48
Good question Larry...for what?
If I was an advisor to Mr. Slager or Mr. Whitehouse I would point out that you both are in the same business.
One is registered as a newspaper, but is on-line in order to survivie. His organization is comitted to doing good...to report the news fairly and responsibly. He is obligated to be fair and balanced. He relies on his paper to make a living and provide for his family. He has been known and recognized for years as a reporter and publisher. His credibility is all he has, and his word must be his bond. He is comitted to go to jail to protect a source.
My other client is a businessman that had the sense to register a name on the web that he knew would befuddle the owner of the paper with the name.
He started a web site, and, has been so successful that he has driven everyone crazy by his wit and guile. He knows what buttons to push, and when. I can't imagine he is making money off of the site, because there is no advertizing. So...I assume he is wealthy and spends his own money to run the site or he has "contributors" that help him off-set his expenses. Good for you! Remember, you are in the same business. Providing information.It is not your fault that some people don't recognize "tongue in cheek" and obsess over your site.
My only advise is, when you make a statement (this is to both clients), say "in my opinion".
I think it is time for the people involved to understand that it is a game. Just play it that way, avoid the nonsense of law suits, and enjoy the success and prestige of both sites.
To my client with the paper, I would suggest that you concentrate on your paper and it's success and stop spending all of your time on a mission you will never win.
Best of luck to both of you.
Offline
#19 2009-07-14 14:16:28
SLAGER IS SUPPORTED BY HIS WIFE,HIS PAPER IS NOT MAKEING ANY MONEY, HIS PAPER IS NOT FARE , HE DITORTS THE NEWS , AND IS A LIEING PRICK, AND IS THE MOUTHPIECE OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN, SLAGER YOU ARE JUST NO DAMM GOOD
Offline
#20 2009-07-14 14:43:17
Mr. McDonald and Mr. OConnell..
Don't you think Mr. Slager should be upset over the fact that posts originally posted by HoorayforAudits became posts from Tim Weisberg, to eventually end up becoming posts from Robert Slager?
Aren't we talking apples and oranges here?
Offline
#21 2009-07-14 14:58:04
Ms Lilly,
I know I would be upset, especially if that wasn't my name or my posts. So, to answer your question, yes.
I don't know if Bill is making the changes, he hasn't said one way or another. If he is, it is probably not a good move, or as they say in London, bad form!
I want to ask you Ms. Lilly, don't you think it is a bit strange that Slager claims to NEVER read this site and within minutes of the change, he is already writing another long winded editorial?
Offline
#22 2009-07-14 14:59:47
IHL,
Do you know for sure that Slager is supported by his wife? That is the only part of your statement I have a problem with, the rest of your statement is fine! :)
Offline
#23 2009-07-14 15:10:52
Since we are friends from way back, all the way back to our ST blogging days, I hope you don't mind if I call you Larry...
I think Mr. Slager's claim is that he has never posted here...and I have no reason not to believe him...why would he have gone through all the trouble of contacting me to ask me to post the "message" I did for him this morning if he had posted here in the past? Doesn't make sense...
Offline
#24 2009-07-14 15:16:15
Who cares what Bobo thinks? This is just his way of MAKING HIMSELF THE NEWS!
It's also classic distraction. You bat this stupid rift around for a while, and in the meantime he hopes you forgot or miss what's going around around you.
Don't feed in to it!
Offline
#25 2009-07-14 15:16:39
Ms. Lilly,
You may call me Larry, since we are friends from way back then. I have to say in defense of anyone dealing with Slager, he is crafty. Yes, i have personal experience with that. If you were going to scream to high heaven and threaten legal action, would you reveal if you ever posted on here? And to hide that fact, would you not message someone else to post in your place?
I'm sorry Ms. Lilly, I don't know the answer to the puzzle but I do not I am more skeptical of Slager than you are.
Offline
#26 2009-07-14 15:27:31
Larry McDonald wrote:
If you were going to scream to high heaven and threaten legal action, would you reveal if you ever posted on here? And to hide that fact, would you not message someone else to post in your place?
I posted his message at approx. 1 a.m. this morning, long before any of this screen name changing stuff had occured, so again, why bother if he had posted here before... unless he is not only very crafty, but a pretty darn good psychic too...
And no IHL, I did not say psycho...there is a difference...
Offline
#27 2009-07-14 15:35:20
Ms. Lilly,
Someday we need to sit down and go over some things I keep safely locked away. If after that you still hold the same opinion of some folks, I will shake my head.
Until then, I admire your unwavering support.
Offline
#28 2009-07-14 15:53:43
Okay Larry, but only if you promise not to plan our sitdown at your place...I hear it's a real bitch driving around in that there part of town...
Offline
#29 2009-07-14 16:00:38
I know this is an awfully exciting time, but I'm going to try to take an objective look at some of the claims in Slager's most recent article:
Whitehouse created a forum for anonymous bloggers who have come under heavy criticism for their hateful rhetoric.
There's a typo in here. It should read: "Whitehouse created a forum for anonymous bloggers who have come under heavy criticism from this site and the Board of Selectment"
Whitehouse responded by changing the author name of the posts to Robert Slager.
Well, this is factually incorrect. Bill (or somebody) changed the *username* to "Robert Slager". If you look in the account details (available at [link]https://warehamwater.cruelery.com/profile.php?id=628[/link]), you'll see that the Real Name is Unknown. I can register whatever username I want on these forums. BarackObama, DavidOrtiz, SimonCowell....all available, but anybody familiar with message boards and their functionality will understand that this is a board identifier only, and not a formal form of identification.
He is simply continuing a pattern of defamation...
I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how this constitutes defamation - in the case of the changing usernames, nobody said anything about Slager. Don't think this applies.
Every blogger on his web site leaves an IP address on the web server he uses. That information can be subpoenaed with a court order. Then Mr. Whitehouse will have to explain why the IP address on these comments doesn’t match any computer that I own or use. I am looking forward to that day.
While I'm not a lawyer, I am very, very well versed in these areas. What Slager says there is true, unless of course:
Bill doesn't keep logs OR
Slager posts from somebody else's computer OR
Slager posts from his computer at some place other than his home (Starbucks, Bruce's house, etc)
Slager has changed the configuration of his computer since posting OR
Slager posted long enough ago that IP address information has been recycled OR
...well, you get the picture. This is simply an inaccurate statement, and as anybody who's up on his logic will tell you, it's impossible to prove a negative. There's too many other ways for somebody to post a message to rule out the fact that he has used the site.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#30 2009-07-14 17:48:49
acasualobserver wrote:
BoBo The Brainless wrote:
Every blogger on his web site leaves an IP address on the web server he uses. That information can be subpoenaed with a court order. Then Mr. Whitehouse will have to explain why the IP address on these comments doesn’t match any computer that I own or use. I am looking forward to that day.
While I'm not a lawyer, I am very, very well versed in these areas. What Slager says there is true, unless of course:
Bill doesn't keep logs OR
Oh I keep them, alright, continents away from US jurisdiction and encrypted beyond reproach, for whatever value they might serve. The most interesting voices on this site employ proxy servers. Squander your ill gotten gains, bagel boy.
Offline
#31 2009-07-14 18:49:01
TO LARRY , THE RAG IS NOT MAKEING MONEY AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HE IS LOSEING HIS SHIRT , HE LIVES IN HALIFAX ON SECTION 8 AND HIS WIFE LIZA WORKS IN BOSTON.
Offline
#32 2009-07-14 19:20:02
Oh I keep them, alright, continents away from US jurisdiction and encrypted beyond reproach, for whatever value they might serve.
For some reason, this doesn't surprise me :)
Going to send you a PM in a moment
Offline
#33 2009-07-14 19:51:49
Ms Lilly,
Everyone should experience maple springs road. Just don't come this way if you have a commercial vehicle. Our ladies of perpetual sorrow will take pictures and call the ITA!
Offline
#34 2009-07-14 22:13:59
Breaking news Tim weisburg quits rag during a town wide computer audit of town computers.
Offline
#35 2009-07-15 00:14:59
Forget that. Breaking news: Town computers are audited during a town wide audit of town computers.
Try wrapping your head around that one.
Offline
#36 2009-07-15 00:19:06
By the way, out of this entire mess, the fact that still startles me the most is that Ragman was awake at 8 in the morning.
Offline
#37 2009-07-15 00:54:54
I may have not started out on the best foot with some of my past comments. Some were made after a frustrating day in Wareham. I said in the beginning that I do not live in Wareham But do work there. Not for the town. But I have a lot of contact with the town and the town employees. I made a couple of posts that may not have been the best. But I made them . I have been reading the latest for the past day or so that are taking everyone off track. While there is a battle going on between Bill W. and R Slager. The real issue is Wareham. It is strange that after Bill W. received the email from R Slager regarding the slander problem that Hoorayforaudits name and posts disappeared form the registration list and RobertSlager appeared. Bill you are the only one who has control ? did his IP address that you published in the e-mail copy give you the evidence that you needed to be sure he was Horrayfor audits? If not why the change. I don’t like him anymore than you do but lets keep it on the up and up. I have to agree with commonsence that we need to keep it on track and more impotantly , kiss, not make up. I support everything this site stands for. And will keep posting when I can. Bill keep up the fight and I do support you.
Offline
#38 2009-07-15 01:50:18
kinsailman wrote:
I have to agree with commonsence that we need to keep it on track
Awright, if nothing else, Bagel Boy will have to amend his complaint and maybe even temper his bullshit somewhat, for a while. Tiresome crap, isn't it?
G'night, all.
Offline
#39 2009-07-15 08:30:40
Anyone else think it is funny that Bobo whined to the cops for something that he does to people every week in his paper? Karma, it's a bitch.
Offline
#40 2009-07-15 08:49:04
Ham,
Slager is famous for his diatribes on anyone opposing the Selectmen. He certainly can sling it but he can't take it. What's he going to do when the Boston Globe does an article on Wareham and their pet paper boy?
Offline
